http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000037_en_1

i'm not getting into this argument, as obviously there are some people out there who simply cant differentiate right from wrong (not legal /illegal). i haven't read the article, so cant comment on it yet, but have included a link to the CROW act of 2000 above for anyone that wishes to to read.

i think everyone at some point has ridden on a footpath at some time, this doesn't make it right though.

where i live, there is a huge problem with people ridding through reserves and farmland and the land managers are getting seriously f$£ked off about it.

forget the legalities for a moment and consider why these designations are there and why you have access to some areas and not to others. if there is a footpath through a field and the farmer has ewes about to lamb, their stress threshold can cope with walkers slowly moving through, but speeding bikes will panic he ewes and cause them to miscarry. there are other cases locally where bikes have damaged SSSIs and other fragile habitat at however good you think you are, you just cant move as carefully as someone on foot.

where do you draw the line? if it is "cheeky" to ride a bike on a footpath, is it equally so to ride a trail bike on a bridleway or park your car in a field whilst yo go off for a ride?

farmers round these parts are generally nice people and the ones we've approached to ask if we can take a short cut through their land usually say yes, it's just when you don't ask and presume you can that they get annoyed.

a friend of mine has every year at fair time, some of our traveling friends come and park their caravans on his land. They ask and in return, do bits of work around the farm, everyone's happy……. except a couple of years ago, some others turned up, parked where he had asked them not to, sh1t in his hedges and wouldn't move. they were asked to leave, then told and given a deadline, but didn't. to his day, no-one's quite sure how the caravans just happened to get in the way of his reversing tractor. still, flat caravans burn just as well as square ones. The police didn't come out as they don't like to get involved in these things 😉

point i'm making here is that this farmer (who is a good mate of mine) has problems with mountainbikers riding over his land (usually Tuesday nights from wells), he's asked them not to, but they still do. He's fairly tolerant, but when pushed far enough………….

Why do people get **** off with people riding bikes on footpaths? If you're just riding along and being friendly to people you meet why do they not like it?

If a footpath goes through a field of wheat why would a farmer mind if you rode a bike along it?

If it the footpath is not across a delicate ecosystem and you're not going to be disturbing the only nesting pair of Less Spotter Warblers then why would anyone mind if you rode a bike along it?

But, as riding footpaths is not illegal and I dispute I do any damage to property that a heavy rainstorm or a falling tree might do clearly I am not doing anything wrong and will continue to ride footpaths anyway.

if there is a footpath through a field and the farmer has ewes about to lamb, their stress threshold can cope with walkers slowly moving through, but speeding bikes will panic he ewes and cause them to miscarry

If there is a bridleway through a field and the farmer has ewes about to lamb, their stress threshold can cope with walkers slowly moving through, but speeding bikes will panic he ewes and cause them to miscarry.

Riding bikes fast through livestock is wrong regardless of any right of way.

Somerset I nearly always ride on the Mendips

Ever ridden to the trig point on Black Down, Edric?

Nick – its not the one bike thats the problem – its if everyone thinks "its just one bike" and then can cause damage either directly or indirectly.

It's all very transitory though isn't it? For instance I ride footpaths in an area that was once an industrial wasteland some 150 years ago, it's now overgrown and 'beautiful' again, the paths get a bit wider in the winter as the vegitation dies back and some stones move about a bit and it changes over time, but I dispute entirely that it's being damaged rather it's just being used for a different purpose to the one that created the landscape in the first place.

In another 100 years maybe people won't be mountain biking any more, and there will be little if any evidence that anyone rode a bike there ever, but even if there was does it really matter?

Why do people get **** off with people riding bikes on footpaths? If you're just riding along and being friendly to people you meet why do they not like it?

Many people will still be annoyed by it simply because it is prescribed by law.

If the same person saw you riding the same piece of ground but it was classed as a bridleway, they may be unconcerned as to your presence.
The mere fact that you are perceived as doing something you are not supposed to be doing can be enough to make someone angry, even if no inconvenience or damage is being caused.

Many people just don't like others "getting away with something" they
shouldn't be doing.

It's not just about collateral damage, image is very important as well.

Nick – for sure it all depends when and where – there are two issues here that get muddled up

1) riding on footpaths annoys people
2) riding where its inappropriate annoys people and does damage.

If there is a bridleway through a field and the farmer has ewes about to lamb, their stress threshold can cope with walkers slowly moving through, but speeding bikes will panic he ewes and cause them to miscarry.

this is the first I've ever heard of this, and the only signs I've ever seen are "Lambing – please close the gate" and "Lambs on't road", so I wonder if you're not overstating the case ? I know it can be dangerous to come between a cow and her calf.

It occurs to me that perhaps things are different in more densely populated parts of the country. Most of the places we ride we don't see many people and rarely any farm workers at all.

Tuesday from Wells? Thats pretty much got to be the bike city crew IMO.

Tuesday from Wells?

Read the article the other night and while I thought it was good, it missed the point that, for most people, the vague threat of a civil action isn't the main deterrent from riding footpaths – it's the fact that they often have physical measures to exclude cyclists, such as really tight kissing gates or fences.

Admittedly none of these work very well, but they can put you off using a route, especially when you have to lift your bike over a stile every 100m or so.

Under current RoW law, access and surfaces of paths have to be kept suitable for the permitted user group (e.g. you're not allowed to put a stile across a byway, or plough up footpaths) – how would that work if more of the countryside was open to cyclists?

Oh and totally agree about the aceness of Tuesday Weld, watch "Pretty Poison" if you haven't already!

Under current RoW law, access and surfaces of paths have to be kept suitable for the permitted user group

…except they have to make no specific provision for cyclists on bridleways.

Yep, true dat. I'm thinking in terms of baby steps though. Round my way it would be a major undertaking just to replace the kissing gates and stiles with cyclist-friendly access.

Opening up access to cyclists might also bring problems as it would throw lots of soft muddy paths open to abuse in bad weather conditions, or by green laning twunts – there are some spectacularly f–ked bridleways and byways round these parts.

Many people will still be annoyed by it simply because it is prescribed by law.

Again: riding on footpaths isn't proscribed by law.

The law protects the right of pedestrians to walk along a footpath, but it does not make it illegal to ride a bike there.

Stop publicising footpaths via video, print and forums.Its a numbers game…
Graham
Calderdale

Stop publicising footpaths via video, print and forums.Its a numbers game…

your strategy has to include the fact that this will not happen

A really interesting thread.

Elliptic; a very good point made about the trig point on Black Down not actually being on a BW!
Edric: now you know, you must ride around it. We expect complete obedience! 😀

Pay attention, I'm about to put my head on the block and hand the beheading axe to SFB (I had a wee spat with him earlier, but I'm being grown up again)

Y'know this Mendip ride I'm running in August? I'm proposing to take a group of you on a public footpath.

Now hear me out….

I would not do this if it had even the slightest detrimental impact on the landowner or other users. The track in question is currently under application for upgrade to a BW based on suitability and historical use by cyclists and horse riders. It is wide, barely used except for droving livestock, passes near no residences or over no fields, is not a beauty spot or protected area. It is very likely to have been a historical cross-road that was mis-classified. By using the trail, we re-enforce the case for upgrading its status. I will make sure we ride that trail responsibly (slowly). In the very unlikely event that anyone complains, I am prepared to take the heat. I have discussed this and have support from other local riders on here, including one who lives a couple of hundred metres from the trail.

I accept this is controversial and I'm nervous about it. But I hope you can understand that it's not in the same league of cheekiness as riding a popular scenic footpath in a national park on busy weekend.

Oh yeah, and in the long term we'll all be dead, so in the meantime I'll continue to use cheeky trails…..

I'm happy to go along with you Steve on this one.

And if I get stopped by anyone whilst riding a footpath in future, I'm just going to tell them that its not illegal and give them a copy of one of those links. That'll stump them…

Better get a copy or two printed off before Sunday morning. Turtle Trail towards Gollums Pool and then the Terrible Turns, here I come!

Amen Buzz.

It'll be interesting to see if the aggressive crazy lady in the volvo decides to confront on the day.

TBH, its been a good few years since I've heard any trouble down there and I'm not even sure if she's around anymore.

By using the trail, we re-enforce the case for upgrading its status

that's how nearly all rights of way come about. Landowners only want private or toll roads.

Are we not now making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Just ride sensitivly and in small groups, be polite and you will mostly be fine. If your confronted, say sorry and ride off.

Then the problem wont really exist.

Common sence will triumph over badly written rules.

Can I make a point, with apologies if it's been made before:I haven't had time to read all of the posts above.

I ride my local woods almost every day. In there are public footpaths, a bridleway, unclassified paths and various "horse trails". The woods are owned by the Forestry Commission, and their local officer has told me that I am not to ride there other than on the public bridleway as I will "cause damage". The local "Friends of the Wood" organisation have told me the same thing.

A little further away from me are some woods owned by the Woodland Trust. In it are varioius paths and a permissive horse / bike track. There are "no cycling" signs everywhere (other than on the permitted track, obviously).

The National Trust. I have a lot of time for them, and have been a member for more years than I can remember. Despite the comment made in an earlier post, they have improved facilities for cyclists, eg upgrading the footpath beside Loughrigg Tarn to bridleway status, which provides a useful link, much safer / funner / more scenic than the road alternative. However, it has to be said there are generally few bridleways on their land, with the possible exception of some National Parks.

My point is this. Should we not be trying to persuade these organisations, all of whom are, to some extent, in the public domain, to allow greater (and responsible) access, instead of going out there with all guns blazing and trying to change the world all in one go. Surely this would be a good first step, with a reasonable chance of success?

I think that a group such as the National Trust could make a big difference. There must be a lot of mountain bikers and (horse riders etc) who are members of the trust. Using this membership influence to alter the trusts' policy on bicycle access would be a great move. NT own huge amounts of land, including lots of coastal areas. If such an influential landowner could work to alter its policy, this could have a great knock on effect.

Any thoughts?

I'm given to wonder why the word "responsible" is applied so heavily in this context ? Does mountain biking uniquely incline us to wholesale irresponsibility, or is it just a manipulative term used to guilt trip people into self-restriction ?

NT – that's a smart idea. We already benefit from FC support – access to forests is part of their remit. What is NT policy?

Elliptic; a very good point made about the trig point on Black Down not actually being on a BW!

The trig point which is actually on Beacon Batch isn't on a footpath either

only want private or toll roads.

-Must put my glasses on I thought that said troll roads!

The trig point which is actually on Beacon Batch isn't on a footpath either

So come on then Edric: have you ridden to it?

National Trust Guiding Principles

The NTs principles look pretty favourable. They would obviously be specific to each property – i wouldnt be too worried about not being able to ride around on the lawns of a stately home for example, but it would be nice if they perhaps opened up the woodland on the estate for example.

They are already an organisation with a good understanding of volunteer relations too, so i am sure that working with local riders would be something they could understand.

Why is it so important to gain access to footpaths formally? To prevent confrontation or arrest?
I don't agree with open access and will continue riding footpaths.
I don't agree with open access as I think certain "trails" will get too much attention, annoying other users and land owners. The flaunting of Calderdales relaxed attitude toward access by "locals", and its promotion by various media, has brought about many more verbal challenges of late.
We don't need open access, just a little common sense and empathy.

The FC are an odd example.

In Hamsterley, there is open access anywhere for cyclists except on the public footpaths which run through the forest. This just reinforces the idea that it's illegal to cycle on footpaths, as though even the land owner can't give permission to do so.

(I assume it's to avoid the barrage of complaints from walkers complaining about cyclists riding on the footpaths.)

just a little common sense and empathy.

tha discriminates unfairly against those who have neither 🙁
Are you local ?

As its only a Civil offence to ride on a footpath and I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted (and I doubt it will ever happen) I will continue to ride on footpaths as I have done for the last 22 years and nothing has changed in that time. I always try to give way to walkers though.

You always get the occasional walker have a go at you from time to time, but they can do nothing. In the past when really confronted by a walker I've asked them if they break the speed limit in their car occasionally, I then point out the Criminal Nature of that offence and its potential for death, injury. Very rarely over the years a farmer/landowner/ranger has asked me to leave a footpath and I have done so.

My exceptions to this are people riding in big groups, it just provokes walkers and makes a big mess, particularly in winter. I would also avoid really boggy/muddy footpaths in winter for the mess you make of the path.

Probably not a great idea on to do it in the big National Parks such as the Lakes as well.

So, as long as you keep the numbers small, its game on in my opinion. Its never made a jot of difference that lots of Mountain Bikers ride on footpaths and it never will.

Well I am concerned that the Mendip forum ride could be as many as 30 riders – a large group. Erosion is not an issue given that it mostly sees livestock and the farmers' 4×4 "traffic", plus is baked hard ATM.

But I want to ensure that everyone takes particular care to ride slowly on that trail to avoid any criticism from other users. Athough I have never actually met anyone else on that trail over the years I've walked and cycled along it.

Athough I have never actually met anyone else on that trail over the years I've walked and cycled along it.

but you might grass each other up ??

Lets get the terminology right here…

Civil offence

There is no such thing. If it's 'civil' then there's no 'offence'. The term 'offence' is only applied it you break the law. If you are being pursued through the civil courts then by definition you have not committed any offence.

Civil proceedings for trespass will only be instigated in order to get from the defendant any costs that have been incurred by the land owner due to the actions of the trespasser. It is ONLY the landowner that can instigate civil proceedings for trespass. To be successful they would have to show that you caused damage that needed to be rectified by the landowner at his expense. This could be his time of course, but he'd still have to prove the repair work was done and was actually necessary. Arguing that tyre tracks warranted repair while footprints didn't would be a rather weak argument and probably the reason why I bet no one on here can cite a successful claim for damages due to trespass on land by a cyclist where a right of access only exists for walkers.

If challenged by the landowner, offer him £1 for his trouble. If he refuses he's effectively rejected your offer to negotiate a settlement. That won't help any civil case brought against you at a later date – which frankly won't happen anyway.

Any mention of police involvement is just bluff and nonsense. Not only have they better things to do but since it's a civil matter it's nothing to do with them anyway.

If challenged by the landowner, offer him £1 for his trouble

or, if you want to make him really angry, 10p or a foreign coin…

edit: sorry, that was sexist "make them angry"

Yes I do ride to the trig point,probably on the basis of tradition or tolerance as sighted below

The Countryside Agency was given the duty by parliament to map all areas of land in England that is “wholly or predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down”. They had no discretion to omit areas of open country from the mapping process and where land has been identified on the map as open country, the act ensures that any conflict between public access and land management or other issues may be resolved by the imposition of exclusions or restrictions of access.

Also, within the terms of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, certain types of land are classified as “excepted land” and will not be subject to the access rights.

The national restrictions and local restriction powers only apply to CROW access rights. They do not affect what people already do: by local tradition or tolerance; with express permission; on public rights of way such as footpaths and bridleways; or under any other existing rights or arrangements that apply locally. Your ‘access authority’ (the national park or highway authority) has special powers to help you manage the new access right